I've been through BCT and AIT, and I have to admit, there is at least one incident that has made me wonder if this wasn't the point (the platoon or company siding with on of the recruits or privates), but it really doesn't make a lot of sense. A lot of BCT is learning to identify and respect the chain of command. Why would they spend 9 weeks of BCT teaching you proper military ediquette only to purposely attempt to get you to hate it in the last week?
I was a Marine, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that this was exactly the point. Mutual bad experiences certainly have a bonding effect. There were a few times, in the middle of training, that the drill instructors seemed to be going above and beyond the norm as far as generally making our lives hell. In the last week, when they were slightly more open, one directly told us the point was to bond us through a mutual shitty experiences.
I almost want someone to try it so we can finally make the TSA admit that they can't protect us without obviously doing more harm than any potential terrorists.
That will never happen. They will do some more theater, and that will be the end of it.
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger
That is talking about people who are in the armed forces, and serving during a time of war. In that case those people (US service members) have the grand jury requirement waived. Also note that it is only about the grand jury requirement, not due process.
Also note this clause:
No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
That one is pretty unambiguous, and has no qualifiers. There is no legal reason for the government to deprive someone of life without due process.
I have no problem bombing someone else in a far off land if it keeps me safe here. And it has worked...how many terrorist attacks have there been on US soil in the past decade?
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
There are many non-person living things on this planet that have a heartbeat, head, brain, arms, feet, etc. A mouse for example. Your blob of living stuff isn't even up to mouse standards at the moment though. It's totally unable to live on it's own. It's sub-mouse.
While I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, you must be careful about that standard. A six month old baby couldn't survive totally on its own, contrasted to an adult mouse, which could. While the six month old is able to survive longer, it still is not 100%. Does this mean that the mouse is more deserving of life? If the answer is no, then survivability and development isn't the only standard that matters.
My point here is that things are seldom black and white. We like to draw lines and say anything below this is one thing, while anything above it is another. However, they are arbitrary, and it's important to not get too caught up in defending them.
The line has hump-backed stations which allow trains to store gravitational potential energy as they slow down and release it when they leave a station. This provides an energy saving of 5% and makes the trains run 9% faster.
I suppose it may be hard to retrofit the hills. Although, wiki calls it a slight hill. If it were only a few feet then I would think it would be worth it.
Some quick math shows that an object at 40 mph (18 m/s) has about the same energy as it would gain from a 16 meter fall. That's certainly doable, but probably too much for a retrofit, as it would require new tunnels. Then again, any hill would help a little.
I'd be interested in how you think the NOAA was running amok. As far as I can tell they predicted the track and wind speed of the storm quite well. Perhaps they were off on rainfall and storm surges, but it was a prediction after all.
Playgrounds are supposed to have LESS risk than other choices. As a kid, I often had to choose between cool places like construction sites, abandoned buildings, and playgrounds. A lot of kids played in the others, and a lot of them got seriously injured.
Clearly the answer is the make construction sites safe enough for kids to wander around unsupervised and not get hurt. Building materials should all be foam, and no constructions should be over three feet tall.
Wait, so the entire foundation of modern science is to ignore all previous findings before you, and work them out again for yourself? Is it just me, or does that seem a tad inefficient?
You aren't ignoring the findings, but you also aren't just blindly accepting them either. If you read my post again, I'm not advocating that people conduct their own studies. They should read, understand, and judge the studies for themselves, rather than accept that they are true You don't have redo studies or experiments that have been done many many times. At the same time, you should be cautious about any experiment or study that is the first to address a question.
My entire first post could be summarized as: When it comes to important things that you will make decisions based upon, read studies and decide for yourself.
So, I suppose we should personally research every scientific finding?
Yes, this is the entire foundation of modern science. Believing something, even if it is universally accepted by experts, is simply an appeal to authority. Of course, all the experts in a field agreeing to something is certainly a strong indicator that it's worth looking at. On the other hand, it is difficult for a layman to determine that all the experts in a field are in agreement, as opposed to a vocal minority.
As for quantum theory, you probably don't make many daily life decisions that hinge on the accuracy of quantum theory. Thus there isn't much need to research it, unless you are simply curious (which is always a good thing). As for obesity, there are plenty of studies out there. Since it's a medical thing the Cochrane Collaboration is a good place to start looking. Just keep in mind that a single study doesn't have much weight alone. Look for a through meta study with a large sample and sound methods. Reading studies isn't that difficult, and you don't need to read and understand every single word anyway. Sure you may need to invest a day to determine your stance on a claim, but at the end you will be able to make your own decision.
The alternative isn't even really just trusting the experts either. It's unlikely you are personally interviewing a wide range of experts. Instead, you have to rely on how the media interprets the experts (and probably just one expert). One doesn't even have to assume malice on the media's part, simple ignorance will do. I highly recommend you get into the habit of personally verifying any claims you intend to make life decisions based on.
September and October would have been pretty good for the Japanese. They would have gone from fear that the US had a whole bunch of nukes to realization that they didn't have any.
Your use of a $0.50 bulb over the course of your lifetime affects others, both in increased energy demand (and thus higher energy prices), and higher pollution rates.
Residential lighting is a somewhat small part of our total energy demands. Instead of trying to regulate each end use piecemeal, why not simply tax the problem? Build plants to resequester carbon long term. Determine cost to sequester a pound of carbon and tax fuels based on how much carbon they contain. Do this for any other pollutants released into the environment as well.
Nice and simple, you internalize the currently external costs. People pay to clean up the waste they impose on others and then can choose to waste however much they want. Best of all, you actually fix the problem by removing the pollutants, instead of just discouraging their release (but actually having virtually no effect). Not only is this the best solution, but it's totally compatible with the libertarian mindset since your rights end where mine start. You have no right to pump pollutants into the public air.
So what are they persecuting Bradley Manning for then?
Unless there are special circumstances (like agreeing to submit to contract or military law), it is not a crime to share or acquire secret information.
See bolded section of quote. Bradley Manning was in the military, which means he agreed to comply with the UCMJ, which makes it illegal to disclose classified information. There is no such restriction on US citizens by default; they have to agree to it.
Can you name a single place in the US that isn't prone to some natural disaster? Earthquakes in California, hurricanes and tsunamis (remember, most of hese floods are worse than anything in over 100 years) on the coasts, tornados in the midwest, floods near rivers. No US citizen is safe from natural disasters.
Sometimes these media scandals are just a distraction from important issues, but other times they're a chance to say "hey, that person you've been praising as the second coming? Well here's yet another piece of evidence that they're complete nutjob, now go back and think about why you were such an idiot before".
Sorry, but evidence doesn't convince people to change their beliefs. Particularly beliefs as strong as politics, and the type of people that support Palin. Indeed it could make it worse. http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/
My proposal for simplifying the legal code:
1) A bill must be read aloud, in its entirety, by sponsoring congressman, in session, before it can be voted on.
2) Automatic 15-year sunset for all laws.
1 would make the laws shorter, and prevent stuff getting "snuck in," plus would make the laws with more sponsors easier to pass,
2 would mean that any law not important enough to be revisited every 15 years would not be important enough to be a law.
Also, I'd like there to be a penalty for passing laws that later turn out to be unconstitutional.
I've long been a proponent of sunset laws. But I really like the reading aloud idea. May I also suggest that no one may vote unless they were present for the entire reading. Our congress people already freely admit to not reading laws they vote on.
Just to give some idea of scale. Wikipedia says 150 words per minute is typical for speech. The Patriot Act copied and pasted into Libre Office is 56k words. Which works out to about 6 hours. Not as long as I'd like for something as long as that, but still an improvement.
Anyone got the numbers on how long a top 10 supercomputer would take to decrypt a strong encryption scheme?
The top publicly known super computer has a peak of almost 5 million GFlops. If we generously assume that each floating point operation = 1 key try, that gives 5x10^15 trys per second. Some spreadsheet work shows that would crack a 64 bit key in under an hour, but a 128 bit key would take 10^15 years. 256 bit would take 10^53 years.
If we assume that the NSA has even greater power to throw at this, or that power will increase with time it still doesn't make much difference. It takes about 2^50 more power before it becomes feasible, i.e., less than a decade. So that is either 50 years of computing power doubling ever year or the NSA having supercomputers about 10^15 times more powerful. 256 bit remains secure well past 100 years of annual doubling (or 10^30 more power).
Or course, all this assumes one uses the full keyspace available. An 8 character password isn't 256 bit, even if 256 bit encryption is used. If one used a random mixture of digits upper/lower case letters and special chars, there are 95 possibilities easily made on a normal keyboard. 95^20 ~= 2^128, so one would need about 20 random characters to have 128 bits.
The result: a free education. How many $50k-100k checks do you think the government can hand out before the entire financial system collapses?
All of them. A quick google search shows about 1 million US public bachelor degrees per year. That is $50-100 billion a year. Certainly a lot of money, but less than the current wars cost.
Although everybody keeps saying that it will display "MyPhoto.jpg.exe" as "MyPhoto.jpg" and thus mislead people, while I certainly admit it is quite likely, I am confused why the MS defenders don't point out that it should not confuse people because a real "MyPhoto.jpg" would display as "MyPhoto" and thus be different than the bogus file.
Can somebody explain this?
Because people are dumb. We're not talking about savvy tech users here. We're talking about people that don't really understand anything about how a computer does anything. You may argue that photo.jpg when extensions are supposed to be hidden should set off warning bells, and indeed it should. However, in practice people know.jpg is a picture, and that is what they are expecting the file to be. It is not uncommon at all to see legitimate image files named photo.jpg.jpg.jpg and similar.
Simply displaying the extensions is an easy fix, because even mostly clueless computer users know that a image shouldn't end in.exe. I also see no way that hiding the extensions is helpful to the user. Microsoft seems to be constantly trying to insulate users from the processes that make their computer work. With that mindset.exe is a confusing behind the scenes piece of info that the users don't need to know about. However, I think most users are quite comfortable with the concept that extensions tell them what type of file a file is.
As others have said, disabling autorun and turning on extensions are some of my first steps in setting up a PC. MS corrected one of these, maybe they will finally fix the other. Failing that, there seems to be a bunch of other simple fixes they could implement without fully displaying all extensions. For example they could selectively display extensions for any file that will execute itself (eg,.exe,.bat,.com). Or, they could outline executables in red to make them stand out a bit.
He isnt out of office yet... so he cant have any "Promise Broken", "Stalled" seems more logical at this point.
Yes he can. A promise with a time limit "I will do X within one year of taking office", or a promise to always do something "I will do Y before signing any law".
906a. ART. 106a. ESPIONAGE
(A) (1) Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any entity described in paragraph (2), either directly or indirectly, any thing described in paragraph (3) shall be punished as a court-martial may direct, except that if the accused is found guilty of an offense that directly concerns (A) nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large scale attack, (B) war plans, (C) communications intelligence or cryptographic information, or (D) any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy, the accused shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court- martial may direct.
How do I make a contribution to the U.S. government?
Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the United States." This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.
Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782
- About the cables - Wikileaks actually did not leak them to the public. They gave them to 5 major newspapers around the world who discussed them together and decided what to leak and what not to leak.
Yes they did. Or rather are currently. They are slowly releasing them all on their site.
Yes, but that was before Obama took office, and the NRA warned people that Obama and Pelosi were going to take the military's "assault weapons" away.
First, I'd very much like a source for the NRA (or any group for that matter) seriously claiming Obama (or anyone else) was going to take the military's rifles.
Second, even in the very unlikely event that that claim was actually made, what effect are you claiming that would have had on the price the government pays? Certainly, both the government and the manufactures would know that claim was absurd, so there would have been reason for a price change.
Lastly, it's been close to two years now of Obama and democrate majority in power. I think they've clearly demostrated they have no intentions of ever making any significant reduction in the military industrial complex. Thus, any effect on price (which never happened in the first place), would have been undone.
I was a supply Marine, I remember looking up the M-16 while in supply school. I remember it being just under $500. That is for the bare minimum basic M-16 A2, and was about six years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been through BCT and AIT, and I have to admit, there is at least one incident that has made me wonder if this wasn't the point (the platoon or company siding with on of the recruits or privates), but it really doesn't make a lot of sense. A lot of BCT is learning to identify and respect the chain of command. Why would they spend 9 weeks of BCT teaching you proper military ediquette only to purposely attempt to get you to hate it in the last week?
I was a Marine, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that this was exactly the point. Mutual bad experiences certainly have a bonding effect. There were a few times, in the middle of training, that the drill instructors seemed to be going above and beyond the norm as far as generally making our lives hell. In the last week, when they were slightly more open, one directly told us the point was to bond us through a mutual shitty experiences.
I almost want someone to try it so we can finally make the TSA admit that they can't protect us without obviously doing more harm than any potential terrorists.
That will never happen. They will do some more theater, and that will be the end of it.
Please reread that carefully (Emphasis mine):
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger
That is talking about people who are in the armed forces, and serving during a time of war. In that case those people (US service members) have the grand jury requirement waived. Also note that it is only about the grand jury requirement, not due process.
Also note this clause:
No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
That one is pretty unambiguous, and has no qualifiers. There is no legal reason for the government to deprive someone of life without due process.
I have no problem bombing someone else in a far off land if it keeps me safe here. And it has worked...how many terrorist attacks have there been on US soil in the past decade?
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
There are many non-person living things on this planet that have a heartbeat, head, brain, arms, feet, etc. A mouse for example. Your blob of living stuff isn't even up to mouse standards at the moment though. It's totally unable to live on it's own. It's sub-mouse.
While I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, you must be careful about that standard. A six month old baby couldn't survive totally on its own, contrasted to an adult mouse, which could. While the six month old is able to survive longer, it still is not 100%. Does this mean that the mouse is more deserving of life? If the answer is no, then survivability and development isn't the only standard that matters.
My point here is that things are seldom black and white. We like to draw lines and say anything below this is one thing, while anything above it is another. However, they are arbitrary, and it's important to not get too caught up in defending them.
Has anybody tried just building the stations on hills?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_line
The line has hump-backed stations which allow trains to store gravitational potential energy as they slow down and release it when they leave a station. This provides an energy saving of 5% and makes the trains run 9% faster.
I suppose it may be hard to retrofit the hills. Although, wiki calls it a slight hill. If it were only a few feet then I would think it would be worth it.
Some quick math shows that an object at 40 mph (18 m/s) has about the same energy as it would gain from a 16 meter fall. That's certainly doable, but probably too much for a retrofit, as it would require new tunnels. Then again, any hill would help a little.
with people running amok including NOAA and NHC
I'd be interested in how you think the NOAA was running amok. As far as I can tell they predicted the track and wind speed of the storm quite well. Perhaps they were off on rainfall and storm surges, but it was a prediction after all.
Playgrounds are supposed to have LESS risk than other choices. As a kid, I often had to choose between cool places like construction sites, abandoned buildings, and playgrounds. A lot of kids played in the others, and a lot of them got seriously injured.
Clearly the answer is the make construction sites safe enough for kids to wander around unsupervised and not get hurt. Building materials should all be foam, and no constructions should be over three feet tall.
Wait, so the entire foundation of modern science is to ignore all previous findings before you, and work them out again for yourself? Is it just me, or does that seem a tad inefficient?
You aren't ignoring the findings, but you also aren't just blindly accepting them either. If you read my post again, I'm not advocating that people conduct their own studies. They should read, understand, and judge the studies for themselves, rather than accept that they are true You don't have redo studies or experiments that have been done many many times. At the same time, you should be cautious about any experiment or study that is the first to address a question.
My entire first post could be summarized as: When it comes to important things that you will make decisions based upon, read studies and decide for yourself.
So, I suppose we should personally research every scientific finding?
Yes, this is the entire foundation of modern science. Believing something, even if it is universally accepted by experts, is simply an appeal to authority. Of course, all the experts in a field agreeing to something is certainly a strong indicator that it's worth looking at. On the other hand, it is difficult for a layman to determine that all the experts in a field are in agreement, as opposed to a vocal minority.
As for quantum theory, you probably don't make many daily life decisions that hinge on the accuracy of quantum theory. Thus there isn't much need to research it, unless you are simply curious (which is always a good thing). As for obesity, there are plenty of studies out there. Since it's a medical thing the Cochrane Collaboration is a good place to start looking. Just keep in mind that a single study doesn't have much weight alone. Look for a through meta study with a large sample and sound methods. Reading studies isn't that difficult, and you don't need to read and understand every single word anyway. Sure you may need to invest a day to determine your stance on a claim, but at the end you will be able to make your own decision.
The alternative isn't even really just trusting the experts either. It's unlikely you are personally interviewing a wide range of experts. Instead, you have to rely on how the media interprets the experts (and probably just one expert). One doesn't even have to assume malice on the media's part, simple ignorance will do. I highly recommend you get into the habit of personally verifying any claims you intend to make life decisions based on.
September and October would have been pretty good for the Japanese. They would have gone from fear that the US had a whole bunch of nukes to realization that they didn't have any.
Looks like it's more in the middle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Plans_for_more_atomic_attacks_on_Japan
The U.S. expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August, with three more in September and a further three in October.
The reference given says they expected them to be produced one every ten days.
Your use of a $0.50 bulb over the course of your lifetime affects others, both in increased energy demand (and thus higher energy prices), and higher pollution rates.
Residential lighting is a somewhat small part of our total energy demands. Instead of trying to regulate each end use piecemeal, why not simply tax the problem? Build plants to resequester carbon long term. Determine cost to sequester a pound of carbon and tax fuels based on how much carbon they contain. Do this for any other pollutants released into the environment as well.
Nice and simple, you internalize the currently external costs. People pay to clean up the waste they impose on others and then can choose to waste however much they want. Best of all, you actually fix the problem by removing the pollutants, instead of just discouraging their release (but actually having virtually no effect). Not only is this the best solution, but it's totally compatible with the libertarian mindset since your rights end where mine start. You have no right to pump pollutants into the public air.
So what are they persecuting Bradley Manning for then?
Unless there are special circumstances (like agreeing to submit to contract or military law), it is not a crime to share or acquire secret information.
See bolded section of quote. Bradley Manning was in the military, which means he agreed to comply with the UCMJ, which makes it illegal to disclose classified information. There is no such restriction on US citizens by default; they have to agree to it.
Can you name a single place in the US that isn't prone to some natural disaster? Earthquakes in California, hurricanes and tsunamis (remember, most of hese floods are worse than anything in over 100 years) on the coasts, tornados in the midwest, floods near rivers. No US citizen is safe from natural disasters.
While certainly there is nowhere with 0 risk, it would be silly to claim that the risk can't be mitigated greatly by choosing a safer location. A few minutes with google returned several good lists of disasters:
http://www.fema.gov/news/disaster_totals_annual.fema
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/billionz.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_disasters_in_the_United_States
While you are right that you can find virtually any area in the US on those lists, there are some areas that show up over and over again. Those are the regions to avoid.
Sometimes these media scandals are just a distraction from important issues, but other times they're a chance to say "hey, that person you've been praising as the second coming? Well here's yet another piece of evidence that they're complete nutjob, now go back and think about why you were such an idiot before".
Sorry, but evidence doesn't convince people to change their beliefs. Particularly beliefs as strong as politics, and the type of people that support Palin. Indeed it could make it worse.
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/
My proposal for simplifying the legal code: 1) A bill must be read aloud, in its entirety, by sponsoring congressman, in session, before it can be voted on. 2) Automatic 15-year sunset for all laws. 1 would make the laws shorter, and prevent stuff getting "snuck in," plus would make the laws with more sponsors easier to pass, 2 would mean that any law not important enough to be revisited every 15 years would not be important enough to be a law. Also, I'd like there to be a penalty for passing laws that later turn out to be unconstitutional.
I've long been a proponent of sunset laws. But I really like the reading aloud idea. May I also suggest that no one may vote unless they were present for the entire reading. Our congress people already freely admit to not reading laws they vote on.
Just to give some idea of scale. Wikipedia says 150 words per minute is typical for speech. The Patriot Act copied and pasted into Libre Office is 56k words. Which works out to about 6 hours. Not as long as I'd like for something as long as that, but still an improvement.
Anyone got the numbers on how long a top 10 supercomputer would take to decrypt a strong encryption scheme?
The top publicly known super computer has a peak of almost 5 million GFlops. If we generously assume that each floating point operation = 1 key try, that gives 5x10^15 trys per second. Some spreadsheet work shows that would crack a 64 bit key in under an hour, but a 128 bit key would take 10^15 years. 256 bit would take 10^53 years.
If we assume that the NSA has even greater power to throw at this, or that power will increase with time it still doesn't make much difference. It takes about 2^50 more power before it becomes feasible, i.e., less than a decade. So that is either 50 years of computing power doubling ever year or the NSA having supercomputers about 10^15 times more powerful. 256 bit remains secure well past 100 years of annual doubling (or 10^30 more power).
Or course, all this assumes one uses the full keyspace available. An 8 character password isn't 256 bit, even if 256 bit encryption is used. If one used a random mixture of digits upper/lower case letters and special chars, there are 95 possibilities easily made on a normal keyboard. 95^20 ~= 2^128, so one would need about 20 random characters to have 128 bits.
The result: a free education. How many $50k-100k checks do you think the government can hand out before the entire financial system collapses?
All of them. A quick google search shows about 1 million US public bachelor degrees per year. That is $50-100 billion a year. Certainly a lot of money, but less than the current wars cost.
Although everybody keeps saying that it will display "MyPhoto.jpg.exe" as "MyPhoto.jpg" and thus mislead people, while I certainly admit it is quite likely, I am confused why the MS defenders don't point out that it should not confuse people because a real "MyPhoto.jpg" would display as "MyPhoto" and thus be different than the bogus file. Can somebody explain this?
Because people are dumb. We're not talking about savvy tech users here. We're talking about people that don't really understand anything about how a computer does anything. You may argue that photo.jpg when extensions are supposed to be hidden should set off warning bells, and indeed it should. However, in practice people know .jpg is a picture, and that is what they are expecting the file to be. It is not uncommon at all to see legitimate image files named photo.jpg.jpg.jpg and similar.
Simply displaying the extensions is an easy fix, because even mostly clueless computer users know that a image shouldn't end in .exe. I also see no way that hiding the extensions is helpful to the user. Microsoft seems to be constantly trying to insulate users from the processes that make their computer work. With that mindset .exe is a confusing behind the scenes piece of info that the users don't need to know about. However, I think most users are quite comfortable with the concept that extensions tell them what type of file a file is.
As others have said, disabling autorun and turning on extensions are some of my first steps in setting up a PC. MS corrected one of these, maybe they will finally fix the other. Failing that, there seems to be a bunch of other simple fixes they could implement without fully displaying all extensions. For example they could selectively display extensions for any file that will execute itself (eg, .exe, .bat, .com). Or, they could outline executables in red to make them stand out a bit.
He isnt out of office yet... so he cant have any "Promise Broken", "Stalled" seems more logical at this point.
Yes he can. A promise with a time limit "I will do X within one year of taking office", or a promise to always do something "I will do Y before signing any law".
906a. ART. 106a. ESPIONAGE
(A) (1) Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any entity described in paragraph (2), either directly or indirectly, any thing described in paragraph (3) shall be punished as a court-martial may direct, except that if the accused is found guilty of an offense that directly concerns (A) nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large scale attack, (B) war plans, (C) communications intelligence or cryptographic information, or (D) any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy, the accused shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court- martial may direct.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm#906.%20ART.%20106.%20SPIES
What exactly is "communications intelligence"? I don't know, but this is likely the article of the UCMJ he'll be charged with.
How do I make a contribution to the U.S. government?
Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the United States." This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.
Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782
http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html
- About the cables - Wikileaks actually did not leak them to the public. They gave them to 5 major newspapers around the world who discussed them together and decided what to leak and what not to leak.
Yes they did. Or rather are currently. They are slowly releasing them all on their site.
Currently released so far... 1766 / 251,287
A random example: http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/12/09USNATO588.html They may be slightly censoring the versions released to the public, but they are releasing them.
Yes, but that was before Obama took office, and the NRA warned people that Obama and Pelosi were going to take the military's "assault weapons" away.
First, I'd very much like a source for the NRA (or any group for that matter) seriously claiming Obama (or anyone else) was going to take the military's rifles.
Second, even in the very unlikely event that that claim was actually made, what effect are you claiming that would have had on the price the government pays? Certainly, both the government and the manufactures would know that claim was absurd, so there would have been reason for a price change.
Lastly, it's been close to two years now of Obama and democrate majority in power. I think they've clearly demostrated they have no intentions of ever making any significant reduction in the military industrial complex. Thus, any effect on price (which never happened in the first place), would have been undone.
I was a supply Marine, I remember looking up the M-16 while in supply school. I remember it being just under $500. That is for the bare minimum basic M-16 A2, and was about six years ago.